Three Negro women appeared before a mediating panel of clergymen with complaints that a Jewish butcher was “refusing to sell meat to many Negro residents of the neighborhood, but selling to white Irish Catholics who live outside of the area but formerly lived within it.” Furthermore: “The complainants report that this sort of discriminatory practice occurs elsewhere in the neighborhood—that in ‘two instances angry Negro customers threatened the storekeeper—and in one instance also injured the storekeeper so that he was obliged to close up for a few days.”

The following quotation appeared last January in a national Negro newspaper. Leading Negro women of the community—commenting on the Baltimore department store situation—stated:

It is a poor excuse for Jewish merchants who own and control the major downtown department stores which set the policy in Baltimore to say their patrons force them to employ discriminatory practices against Negroes . . .

Boycott and picket is the real solution to the problem. In this way we can call attention to the Jewish merchants who are guilty of Hitlerism here in Baltimore.

Some Negro domestics assert that Jewish housewives who employ them are unreasonable and brazenly exploitative. A Negro actor states in bitter terms that he is being flagrantly underpaid by a Jewish producer. A Negro entertainer is antagonistic to his Jewish agent who (he is convinced) is exploiting him. He vents his feelings to his friends, but admits that “If the Jews didn’t get us bookings or parts we wouldn’t work—but they make a gold mine out of us.”

Antagonism toward the “Jewish landlord“ is so common as to have become almost an integral aspect of the folk culture of the northern urban Negro. To him, almost all landlords are automatically Jewish and all his obvious housing ills are attributed to the greed and avarice of the “Jewish landlord.”

In short, in practically every area of contact between the Negro and Jewish peoples some real or imagined grounds for mutual antagonism exist. Undoubtedly, many personal relationships between Jews and Negroes are exceptions to the general pattern, and among highly politically or intellectually developed Negroes and Jews there is little overt indication of antagonism. Yet on the whole the picture cannot be considered a favorable one.

_____________

One Jewish Approach

Efforts are being made to remedy the situation. Whether these efforts are well advised is, however, another question. And it is most certainly open to question whether, well-meaning as they may be, they have . any vital effect. Let us cite a single case in point.

In the latter part of November 1945, an Institute on Judaism and Race Relations was called by the Commission on Justice and Peace of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Its stated purpose was “to aid in the preparation of a statement relating the teachings of the prophets of Israel to the problems of race in the modern world.” One of the six round tables of which the Institute was composed concerned itself with the problems of “the Negro in the United States.”

It was felt by the writer that on-the-spot observation and analysis of this particular round table might provide some valuable insights into the problem of Jewish-Negro relations. So far, the social psychologist has not made enough use of direct observation of real-life social interaction as a way of developing and checking his interpretations.

The round table on “The Negro in the United States” began by analyzing and modifying a statement prepared by its chairman. This statement, as originally presented, contained the following: () an introductory paragraph pointing out the relation between Nazi excesses against Jews and the Jews’ understanding of the suffering of others—“. . . because our religion is based upon the belief in the oneness of humanity; because our trials and suffering have given us both understanding and unusual sympathy, we are perhaps in a position to appreciate fully the plight of the Africans and Asiatics under white imperialism and especially the plight of our Negro brothers”; (2) a section listing social status gains made by Negroes during the war; (3) a list of the more obvious injustices the Negro still suffers in spite of the listed “gains”; (4) a general statement about the need for a just society free from racial jingoism and exploitation.

Most of the ensuing discussion dwelt on small points of terminology, coherence and language. And the conclusions finally agreed upon by the round table did not differ significantly from the chairman’s statement. However, the final statement by the editorial committee of the Institute varied from that of the round table discussion by eliminating the introductory paragraph and reducing the final paragraph to the following: “These considerations are valid for all Americans. Because they are so deeply consonant with Jewish teaching and reinforced by Jewish experience, we shall lend our strongest efforts to secure justice for the Negro.”

It is significant that in neither the original statement nor the one finally released was any mention made of the specific problems of Jewish-Negro relations as such. There appeared to be a general reluctance to deal with those aspects of Negro life in America that directly and concretely involved Negro-Jewish relations.

_____________

Avoiding the Issue

Rabbi Ferdinand M. Isserman of Temple Israel, St. Louis, Missouri, chairman of the Commission on Justice and Peace, joined the round table for a few hours during its discussions and made strenuous attempts to get the group to include in that portion of the statement dealing with the injustices toward Negroes a specific statement about anti-Negro practices in Jewish hospitals and certain department stores. He stated: “We must point the fingers at ourselves too. Jewish hospitals have followed the prevailing discrimination against Negroes in the selection of students, nurses, internes, and staff members. . . . We could direct an appeal to Jewish hospitals to admit Negroes as patients and members of their staffs.”

Another member of the panel said that the problem of “department stores owned by members of our congregation” who discriminate against Negroes (particularly in border cities such as Baltimore) had him “baffled.” He was even more disturbed because he found that “Negroes were more bitter toward Jewish owners than toward non-Jewish owners who discriminated against them.”

Another member declared that he was “not too sure” whether these specific recommendations were “pertinent” to the statement under consideration. It was agreed, however, at the insistence of Rabbi Isserman, that some specific statement about discriminatory practices in “Jewish hospitals” should be included in the statement.

After Rabbi Isserman left, the question of specific mention of discrimination in Jewish hospitals was reopened. It was felt that the group was not justified in singling out Jewish institutions; they were not the only ones guilty of discrimination against Negroes. Instead of a specific statement on this point, the final, very general, summary statement quoted above was suggested to “take care of this.”

It was at this point, too, that one of the participants, who had not taken too active a part before, said: “We have been discussing the problems of the Negro as if his condition was to be blamed on others. . . . Shouldn’t we point out somewhere in the statement that the Negro should assume some responsibility to help himself? We can help them by showing them that they can help themselves—we can help them by pointing out their deficiencies.” This suggestion was met by what appeared to be embarrassed silence. Then another participant, who had demurred against the singling-out of Jewish hospitals and proposed the substitution of the summary statement, said: “If I were a Negro and saw such a statement coming from a Jewish group I would be morally indignant. It would be the extreme of poor taste for a group such as this to make such a statement publicly. . . . There are things which we can say to our Negro friends in private that we cannot say for public consumption.” And there the matter ended and the round table closed.

The round table well reflected the dilemma of Jewish-Negro relations in contemporary American society. Here were a number of Jewish persons, all armed with the best intentions, and yet unable to free themselves from prevailing American attitudes toward the Negro. Most typically perhaps this attitude reveals itself in condescension. On the face of it, it appears commendable that one minority group should be concerned with the status of another oppressed group. But the question arises as to what Jews and others would think if a conference of Negro leaders were to devote a round table to the problem of “The Jew in the United States.”

Some parts of the originally prepared statement also revealed either a basic lack of understanding of the nuances of the American Negro’s position or an unconscious acceptance of an attitude toward him not significantly different from the prevailing attitude. The following part of the original statements seems particularly pertinent here:

The war against fascism has been marked by some gains for our Negro citizens. Among these . . . the opportunity given Negroes in our fighting forces to display their fine heroism and their patriotism. . . .

Now the status of Negroes in the armed forces happens to be a humiliating one and not compatible at all with such terms as “opportunity,” “heroism” or “patriotism.” It fits the pattern of institutionalized fascist racism far more closely.

At no time during these discussions did an almost elemental point seem to be clearly understood: that mere generalities highly charged with moralizing sentimentality cannot bring about desired social changes. It is obviously true that the problems of the Jew and the Negro in America have moral implications, but they cannot be dealt with by mere words. In fact, moral verbalization has often been used precisely to cloak the perpetuation of injustice.

No, what we need here are facts, first of all, and then concrete action. But what are the facts?

_____________

Some of the Facts

An investigation of inter-group attitudes in one of the larger, more isolated communities that make up metropolitan New York, found that nearly 60 per cent of Jews held some unfavorable stereotyped reaction toward Negroes and 70 per cent of Negroes had some unfavorable stereotyped reaction toward Jews. Those Jews who looked unfavorably upon Negroes felt that they “have no ambition—they are lazy—they drink a lot—they have low intelligence—they are low class, rowdy, dirty, and noisy.” Negroes antagonistic toward Jews tended to feel that “Jews own everything—they are more aggressive—they engage in sharp business practices.”

The findings of many studies of racial attitudes, particularly among college students, show in general that Jewish students are relatively less negative in their attitudes toward Negroes than are average Gentile whites. On the other hand, the average Negro student tends to have the same general stereotype of the Jew that the Gentile white has.

This pattern of relationship between Jews and Negroes as a whole has been used to prove “the fact” that prejudice is normal and inescapable. “You see, even members of a minority group are antagonistic to other minorities—Jews don’t let Negroes enter their hotels; why should they expect Gentiles to permit Jews into theirs?” The only aim of such reasoning, however, is to justify majority prejudice against minorities in general. It is another version of “divide and conquer.”

Against this, the most prevalent “positive” attitude in the speeches and articles of “right-thinking” Jews and Negroes consists in bemoaning and deploring the facts. “This should not be—we must work together—Negroes and Jews should stand together and fight.” This attitude, however, contributes little either to an understanding of the facts or to the solution of the basic problem.

A second attitude is that of denying the facts. It attempts to emphasize the common bonds between Jews and Negroes: “Jews are fighting with Negroes for full civic, political and economic rights—Jews and Negroes are friends—there is no real problem between our two peoples.”

Still a third attitude is one of ignoring the facts. This makes it possible for each group to concern itself with its own peculiar problems, independent of those of the other group. It is an attitude that seems to be basic in the work-a-day activities of established Jewish and Negro organizations. An elaborate research institute formed by a national Jewish organization admitted that it had undertaken a project to improve Jewish-Gentile relations in a border city under the expressed condition, laid down by some of the white Gentile participants, that the problem of Negro-white relations was not to be raised. This was a city in which at the time there was intense feeling among Negroes against “Jewish” department store owners. The Institute implicitly justified its decision on the ground that the problems of Negro-white and Negro-Jewish relations were secondary to the problem of Jewish-Gentile relations.

A final attitude is the fatalistic one of accepting the facts. This admits the sad facts but assumes that not much can be done about them. This state of mind can arise from intellectual cynicism, or from a deep-going political-economic view of the causes of social psychopathologies, or from resigned acceptance of all social realities that do not constitute an immediate threat.

_____________

The Cost of Insecurity

There still appears to be need for an objective analysis of the active factors involved in the pattern of Jewish-Negro relations. Through such an analysis, one ought to arrive at an understanding upon which a real program for improvement on both sides could be founded.

Here one crucial fact must always be kept in mind. To be sure, each group has a relatively insecure status in the dominant American culture; each suffers from the psychological threats of humiliation; each has been the victim of organized bigotry. But it is naive to assume that, because Negroes and Jews are each in their own way oppressed and insecure, this will necessarily lead to a feeling of kinship and understanding. Actually, the psychological reactions of individuals to insecurity are not so simple and direct. The common ground of insecurity itself may lead to antagonism toward individuals sharing that insecurity. It may also lead to an intensification of fear, suspicion and active hostility as each group competes in efforts to escape relegation to the lowest status.

For in each group there may be a feeling—usually unexpressed—that the presence of another rejected group will deflect the full brunt of the antagonism of the majority from itself. The other group may be looked upon as a buffer—but with protective value only as long as its marginal, insecure status persists.

Further, it appears that insecurity arising from racial and religious persecution tends to develop and intensify a protective ethnocentricism that makes for antagonism toward all other groups, including other minority groups.

Another thread in this whole complex pattern is the tendency of each rejected minority to seek some basis for identification and contact with the attitudes of the dominant majority, especially if by so doing it is able to escape subjectively and temporarily the full impact of its own minority status. Anti-Semitic whites not infrequently involve some Negroes in their bigoted conversations. When a Gentile white condescendingly says to a Negro, “Why John, you are closer to us whites than those dirty Jews are,” the Negro is strongly tempted to take advantage of this admittedly shaky and temporary bridge to the self-validation otherwise denied him by caste prejudice. By the same token, a Jew may establish an equally fragile bond with the Gentile white by discussing the “shiftlessness and unreliability of Negro servants and porters,” or “the catastrophe it would be to let Negro families move into ‘white’ neighborhoods.”

Nor should one ignore the amount of ego-satisfaction an insecure Jew or Negro gains from his antagonism to members of the other group. It serves to compensate him for his own feeling of inferiority. The part played by personal instability and neuroticism in feeding racial prejudice has not been adequately explored. It does seem, however, that the need for personal status and for a good opinion of oneself—based on the inferiority of others—is often more intense in a person belonging to a group that is generally rejected.

Another, even less tangible factor, is that of projected self-hatred. If the attitude of the dominant society is predominantly negative to one’s own group the members of that group may be influenced even to the point of hating themselves as a group. This self-hatred, being in direct conflict with one’s need for self-respect, may be repressed and may disguise itself in the form of hostility toward another minority group.

In any specific situation, any one or more of the factors in this theoretical analysis may emerge in one proportion or another.

_____________

The Negro’s Handicap

For additional clarity let us examine some of the specific problems involved in Jewish-Negro relations in the light of the economic, political, and social realities of the contemporary power-pressure culture of America.

L. D. Reddick, writing on “Anti-Semitism Among Negroes” in the Negro Quarterly, summer of 1942, states: “. . . essentially the ‘Jewish struggle’ and the ‘Negro struggle’ are one.

Such a statement ignores the very wide difference between Jewish and Negro social, political, and economic status. Many Jews have won economic and political eminence. Jews have become Supreme Court Justices, Presidential advisers, etc.; Jews have been able to establish some sort of economic stability in spite of severe discrimination. These facts are known to the Jewish people at large and afford them some basis for positive group self-respect. Negroes too are aware of these facts and are not likely to see the Jewish plight as “identical” with their own. Accordingly, many Negroes view with suspicion any Jewish appeal to them that argues “we are both in the same boat.” This they consider unrealistic, and probably insincere.

Many Negroes, rightly or wrongly, see the struggle of Jews in American society as primarily a conservative one, to consolidate gains already made; and secondarily to expand these gains to a higher level of economic, political, educational and social integration with the dominant group. Though not oblivious to the difficulties of Jews, many Negroes are nevertheless disinclined to view their struggles as fundamental or as critical as their own—the struggle of the Jew is after all not one of life and death, to wring from society the bare necessities of life. The Negro sees his own struggle as an essentially aggressive fight to break down strong traditional barriers that have kept him from obtaining minimally decent housing and food, and the right to other than the most menial jobs; and it is also a struggle to break down barriers that keep him from even minor positions of political and economic power.

Accordingly, Jewish statements about equality, however well intended, may seem to Negroes to minimize real differences and imply acceptance of the status quo.

A part of the complexity of the feelings of the Negro about the Jew is his awareness that Jews have seemed, in general, less negative toward him that have other whites. More Jews have shown active concern about racial problems and more Jews have been willing to hire Negroes for various types of jobs. The Negro’s interpretation of this has not, however, been altogether favorable. There is sometimes the lurking suspicion that all this is motivated by a desire on the part of the Jew to use him as a shield and reflects a not too well disguised concern about his own status.

It is an oversimplification, therefore, to assume that the pattern of anti-Semitism among Negroes is always identical with the anti-Semitic attitudes of Gentile whites. When found in a Negro, anti-Semitism tends to be confused, ambiguous, and not directly traceable to organized bigotry. And while there may be some degree of economic jealousy, anti-Semitism in a Negro does not appear to be rooted directly in economic competition.

_____________

Patterns of Hostility

The following appear to be the basic psychological functions that are supported by and support anti-Semitism in a Negro:

1. Anti-Semitism may offer a pretext for the release of aggressions that come from the insecurity and humiliation of his status.
2. It may canalize and put into words his feeling against whites in general. Often the term “dirty Jew” in a Negro’s mouth means essentially “dirty white.”
3. It may offer a way of solidarizing and identifying himself with the dominant white group.
4. It may help him gain inner group security and may re-inflate deflated racial self-respect. An extreme form of this is the brazen anti-Semitism which in a few cases became an integral part of the appeal of intensely chauvinistic Negro organizations.

Similarly the Jewish attitude toward the Negro is somewhat different from the general attitude of Gentile whites.

Here the background of motivation seems saturated with guilt feelings, anxiety and conflict. There is a conflict between the desire to detach oneself from a group that in this country appears to be even more despised than one’s own, and the tendency of a member of one insecure group to identify himself and cooperate with persons of another insecure group.

This pattern of conflict and guilt feelings may lead to a confusion that expresses itself either in exaggerated, awkward sentimentality toward the other group, or in defensively negative and hostile behavior.

Anti-Negro attitudes among Jews appear to serve the following functions:

1. They offer a basis for subjective identification with the dominant white Gentile, serving as one of the bridges toward assimilation of status with the dominant group.
2. They offer a protective covering behind which a Jew can hope to escape the full impact of anti-Semitism. It is relevant here to note that the status of Southern Jews is more secure than the status of Jews in regions where Negroes form a smaller proportion of the population and where there is less active anti-Negro feeling.

_____________

A Problem of Human Relations

The barbaric excesses of Nazism have made it impossible to escape the full implication of racial and religious prejudice, no matter what its form. These prejudices have been revealed as a crucial symptom of a basic psychopathology in the given society, and attention has been focused on the fact that they seriously threaten the life and the essential dignity of every human being, whether oppressor or oppressed.

An America that heretofore was prone to accept its prejudices as a normal, if somewhat deplorable, aspect of its tradition is now concerned enough to examine them. Indeed, many individuals and groups are not content with verbal catharsis and casual expiation of the sins of our society, but demand practical action that will ameliorate or do away with prejudice.

That such action is necessary and desirable is undebatably true. But the success or failure of such action may well depend upon the soundness of the analysis, the validity of the data, and the social value and stability of the ideological base upon which such action is taken.

It appears clear from what has been said that a sentimental, primarily moralistic, blaming, or ostrich approach to the problem of Negro-Jewish relations is inadequate from a theoretical and practical point of view. This sector of race relations, like all other problems of relations between racial, religious and cultural groups, must be approached within a framework of objectivity and realism. There must be a tough-minded search for facts that are meaningful; they must be placed within a strong ideological framework constructed of human values; and a clear concept must be formed of the goals of an efficiently functioning democratic society. Fear of facts, wishful thinking, an attitude of opportunistic expediency, a willingness to make concessions to some symptoms of the sickness afflicting the dominant society while decrying others will inevitably render hollow whatever apparent improvement may be made in race relations.

We should also understand that the problem of Jewish-Negro relations probably has no important significance in itself, but serves rather to indicate the extent to which the pathologies of the dominant society infect all groups and individuals within that society. They reflect, with modifications in terms of the status of each group, the general social fact that prejudice has a certain political, economic and psychological function in the over-all pattern of American society. If this is correct, it would seem to follow that it is a futile task to attempt to attack the problem of the mutual antagonism of Negroes and Jews as if it were a special, isolated phenomenon.

The chances of success would appear to be greater if enlightened Jews and Negroes and their progressive organizations, instead of approaching each other specifically, pooled their efforts with all other enlightened human beings working to rid society of the virus-like affliction which is one man’s hatred of other men. The obvious obstacle here would be a tendency on the part of any group of human beings—Jewish, Negro, or other—to be limited by narrow group loyalties and ethnocentric considerations. The seriousness of the threat that these, our still unsolved problems present, may well demand a much more resolute effort to discard traditional group loyalties, or at least to submerge them in larger group loyalties, as a prerequisite to their solutions. Loyalty to mankind may have to be given priority over all other loyalties.

If this cannot be, Jews and Negroes may be merely two among the many human casualties of history.